List Mgmt. 2016 general list discussion and speculation (cont in Pt.2)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lana

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Posts
8,764
Likes
15,785
AFL Club
GWS
Why choose 25-29, Seems arbitrary. Why not 24-29.
Maybe it's because we had five 24 year olds on our list at the start of the season and that wouldn't paint the picture he wants to make. Why use 29 as you upper limit, had this been done last year we would have had 5 extra 29 year olds, but at the start of this season we had no 29 year olds on our list.

If you arbitrarily chose a demographic you can "prove" all sorts of points lets chose 22-24. At the start of this year we had 17 player on our list between the ages of 22 and 24. Wow we've rebuilt already. We have 14 players older than 24 on our list, only 5 teams are younger than us.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Posts
31,441
Likes
55,545
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Moderator #1,752
Why choose 25-29, Seems arbitrary. Why not 24-29.
Maybe it's because we had five 24 year olds on our list at the start of the season and that wouldn't paint the picture he wants to make.

If you arbitrarily chose a demographic you can "prove" all sorts of points lets chose 22-24. At the start of this year we had 17 player on our list between the ages of 22 and 24. Wow we've rebuilt already. We have 14 players older than 24 on our list, only 5 teams are younger than us.
I don't think it's arbitrary. I think you'd find that having a 'bulge' in the 25-29 cohort correlates well with Premiership success.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2014
Posts
458
Likes
430
Location
In the relegation battle
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Detroit Pistons | Aston Villa
Be curious to see how our 2007 team fitted into that. My guess is we would have had a ton of players in that range at that time.
12 out of the 22 who played in the GF side fit into that bracket.

EDIT: And 18 of the 22 were 23-29.
 

Lana

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Posts
8,764
Likes
15,785
AFL Club
GWS
The larger the range the less likely the correlation, but yes, I've presented analysis previously that a 24-28 bulge is highly correlated with success.
Which is my point. He could have easily used a 24-28 interval just as easily as he chose the 25-29 interval and called it a "premiership window interval" or some other name and it would have been just a valid. But it's easy to see why he chose the 25-29 interval.

The writer choice the range that would have created the largest difference number of players in a certain interval.
Has this article been written last year he wouldn't have chosen the interval of 25-29 since we had 5 29 years olds. Since it would have double our number of players in the interval. Same reason he didn't use 24 this year. Last year he would have chosen a 25-28 interval where we only had 5 players in it. or a 24-28 interval where we had 7.

We have no 29 year olds on our list but plenty of 30 year olds, we have no 25 year olds on our list but plenty of 24 years. Convenient that they are just outside the selected interval.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Posts
31,441
Likes
55,545
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Moderator #1,759
Which is my point. He could have easily used a 24-28 interval just as easily as he chose the 25-29 interval and called it a "premiership window interval" or some other name and it would have been just a valid. But it's easy to see why he chose the 25-29 interval.

The writer choice the range that would have created the largest difference number of players in a certain interval.
Has this article been written last year he wouldn't have chosen the interval of 25-29 since we had 5 29 years olds. Since it would have double our number of players in the interval. Same reason he didn't use 24 this year. Last year he would have chosen a 25-28 interval where we only had 5 players in it. or a 24-28 interval where we had 7.

We have no 29 year olds on our list but plenty of 30 year olds, we have no 25 year olds on our list but plenty of 24 years. Convenient that they are just outside the selected interval.
It might make a difference when looking at Geelong in this year, but it wouldn't make a difference to the long term correlation. I don't think the article is cherry picking. It's a fairly well accepted phenomena. He's just applying it to Geelong because it's a topical analysis to do.
 

Lana

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Posts
8,764
Likes
15,785
AFL Club
GWS
It might make a difference when looking at Geelong in this year, but it wouldn't make a difference to the long term correlation. I don't think the article is cherry picking. It's a fairly well accepted phenomena. He's just applying it to Geelong because it's a topical analysis to do.
I think it's a cherry picked as they come. If you did the same analysis round 1 next year, we'll have 10 players in that interval, without a single list change.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Posts
31,441
Likes
55,545
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Moderator #1,761
I think it's a cherry picked as they come. If you did the same analysis round 1 next year, we'll have 10 players in that interval, without a single list change.
Carlton, Essendon and Melbourne do too. So what? It doesn't change the widely-accepted principle that having a large number of players in that bracket is a hallmark of almost all Premiership sides.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Teriyakicat

Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Posts
41,564
Likes
39,708
AFL Club
Geelong
Yep landed on it like a bag of shit and looked in trouble right away I said, no just a stinger came back on they replied , he'll be right they said just needed strapping they said.LOL I say.
I remember the incident well. There were speculation that he was gone, then the commentators said he'd been strapped and the word "stinger" mentioned. I do recall someone arguing that he'd fallen straight onto it and he looked in trouble. That was you, I assume, Doc Larkins? :) ;)
 

Stan The Caddy

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Posts
7,686
Likes
10,386
AFL Club
Geelong
It might make a difference when looking at Geelong in this year, but it wouldn't make a difference to the long term correlation. I don't think the article is cherry picking. It's a fairly well accepted phenomena. He's just applying it to Geelong because it's a topical analysis to do.
Yep well said. All he is doing is using the same age profiling as Champion Data. I'm sure if someone was to ask CD they would find that there is some sort of science behind it.
 

Cool Cat

Club Legend
Joined
May 25, 2008
Posts
1,213
Likes
1,351
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Which is my point. He could have easily used a 24-28 interval just as easily as he chose the 25-29 interval and called it a "premiership window interval" or some other name and it would have been just a valid. But it's easy to see why he chose the 25-29 interval.

The writer choice the range that would have created the largest difference number of players in a certain interval.
Has this article been written last year he wouldn't have chosen the interval of 25-29 since we had 5 29 years olds. Since it would have double our number of players in the interval. Same reason he didn't use 24 this year. Last year he would have chosen a 25-28 interval where we only had 5 players in it. or a 24-28 interval where we had 7.

We have no 29 year olds on our list but plenty of 30 year olds, we have no 25 year olds on our list but plenty of 24 years. Convenient that they are just outside the selected interval.

True and worth pointing out. However, another way of looking at it is that the author has identified where the big gap on our list lies, and this gap happens to correlate with the age-range traditionally associated with a footballer's prime. Given all this, the analysis would be remiss not to focus on the notable lack of players in the 25-29 age range.

(Not that we didn't know all this already!)
 

Lana

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Posts
8,764
Likes
15,785
AFL Club
GWS
True and worth pointing out. However, another way of looking at it is that the author has identified where the big gap on our list lies, and this gap happens to correlate with the age-range traditionally associated with a footballer's prime. Given all this, the analysis would be remiss not to focus on the notable lack of players in the 25-29 age range.

(Not that we didn't know all this already!)
I never said that we didn't have a gap in our list, in the past I have written about this demographic issue. But that the way the interval was selected was done purposely to exaggerate the demographic issue.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Posts
31,441
Likes
55,545
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Moderator #1,769
I never said that we didn't have a gap in our list, in the past I have written about this demographic issue. But that the way the interval was selected was done purposely to exaggerate the demographic issue.
This chart shows you why it's not cherry picking. The left hand chart shows the age demographic of the past five premiership sides and Geelong's 2015 best 22 (realistic - e.g. no Menzel). The left hand side is leaving the 24 year olds out of the 'bulge' (as per the article), the right hand side is including them in. The reason it makes no difference analytically is that when you include all 24 year olds then every side you look at also increases in size in that cohort. It's not just Geelong.

image.jpg


So on the left hand side Geelong falls clearly short of the Premiership standard for 25-28 year olds (4 versus at least 6 and up to 9). On the right hand side (your preferred measure) Geelong only matches the outlier Premier in Collingwood 2011 and still falls short of the general Premiership standard in the 24-28 year old cohort (7 versus 9-10).

For it to be cherry picking the above would need to at least show a break down in the theory when you include 24 year olds. It clearly doesn't.
 
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Posts
73,592
Likes
94,339
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Tottenham, Bushrangers
This chart shows you why it's not cherry picking. The left hand chart shows the age demographic of the past five premiership sides and Geelong's 2015 best 22 (realistic - e.g. no Menzel). The left hand side is leaving the 24 year olds out of the 'bulge' (as per the article), the right hand side is including them in. The reason it makes no difference analytically is that when you include all 24 year olds then every side you look at also increases in size in that cohort. It's not just Geelong.

View attachment 142968

So on the left hand side Geelong falls clearly short of the Premiership standard for 25-28 year olds (4 versus at least 6 and up to 9). On the right hand side (your preferred measure) Geelong only matches the outlier Premier in Collingwood 2011 and still falls short of the general Premiership standard in the 24-28 year old cohort (7 versus 9-10).

For it to be cherry picking the above would need to at least show a break down in the theory when you include 24 year olds. It clearly doesn't.
Hmmm interesting. It looks like the end is coming for the Hawks. 2 years and they'll be where we are now, they already rely on the vets (6 of top 7 AFLCA are 30+).
 

manboob

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Posts
28,075
Likes
34,782
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
#rompingwins
Tigs supporters ready saying they'll trade a second round pick for motlop. Cute.
They've generally got no idea on that board - even blokes who are like "I'm a Pakistani immigrant to the States who has just discovered AFL at 3am on FOX sports" have more of a clue.

One bloke even said we'd conceded to losing Hawkins as a FA at the end of this year.:drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk::drunk:
 

manboob

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Posts
28,075
Likes
34,782
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
#rompingwins
To be fair this is a universal bigfooty problem for all boards including ours, we all overrate the players we have (and their trade value) and underrate those players we wish to attain (in trade value terms)
Read through their trade thread and get back to me. Myriad calls of getting Kreuzer to the club too.:$
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom